Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

SPE 71723

Determination of Fit-For-Purpose Saturation Exponents

Paul F Worthington, SPE, Gaffney, Cline & Associates

Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

methodology. In many cases of routine petrophysical
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and interpretation, it is not.
Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September–3 October 2001.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
The saturation exponent n is an important interpretative
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to parameter in petrophysics, because it defines a quantitative
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at relationship between the electrical properties of a reservoir
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
rock and its water saturation Sw, i.e. the faction of pore space
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is that is filled with water as opposed to hydrocarbons.1 This
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous relationship is often expressed in terms of resistivity index Ir,
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
the ratio of the resistivity of a partially water-saturated
reservoir rock Rt to the resistivity R0 that the rock would
possess at conditions of full water saturation with the same
electrolyte, as follows:
Algorithms that are commonly used for the evaluation of Ir = Rt /R0 = C0 /Ct = Sw–n (1)
water saturation can require different input values of
saturation exponent for meaningful application to the same
where the conductivities Ct and C0 are the reciprocals of
reservoir rock. Further, the differences in the required
resistivities Rt and R0, respectively. Equation (1) can be
saturation exponent can vary according to the reservoir
properties themselves. By taking account of these different
input requirements, it is shown that the discrepancies between
Ct = C0 Swn (2)
predicted water saturations obtained using dissimilar
petrophysical algorithms can be confined to a restricted range.
For a reservoir rock that is fully water-saturated, a formation
The procedure is synthesized for easy operational application
resistivity factor, or simply formation factor, F can be defined
of an ordered, interactive method that allows a fit-for-purpose
as follows:
saturation exponent to be identified. Through this process, the
sensitivity associated with the choice of an interpretative
F = R0 /Rw = Cw /C0 (3)
model for the evaluation of water saturation is demonstrably
contained. The application of the method therefore increases
where Rw is the resistivity of the saturating aqueous electrolyte
confidence in petrophysical interpretation by limiting
and Cw is its conductivity. This definition allows equation (2)
to be rewritten in the form:
Ct = (Cw /F) Swn (4)
A reliable knowledge of saturation exponent is a prerequisite
for the meaningful petrophysical evaluation of water
For the limiting case of fully water-saturated conditions,
saturation. Up to now, saturation exponent has been seen
equation (4) reduces to the following alternative form of
solely as a property of a reservoir rock that is obtained through
equation (3):
special core analysis. However, there are growing indications
that saturation exponent is also dependent upon the nature of
C0 = (Cw /F) (5)
the petrophysical algorithm that is to be used subsequently for
the evaluation of water saturation from well logs. It is
Equations (1) - (5) relate to reservoir rocks that are
therefore imperative that a chosen saturation exponent be fit
electrochemically clean, i.e. conduction takes place solely
for purpose, not only in terms of reservoir properties but also
through the free ions within the formation water. These
from the standpoint of petrophysical interpretative
conditions have been loosely associated with the absence of

clays and clay minerals, and this is a fair assumption where and basing the selection of algorithms on company culture,
the formation water has a high salinity. They can be called when a consideration of reservoir physics might have
“Archie” conditions after the author of that seminal paper.1 indicated otherwise. Yet, there is evidence to suggest that
Otherwise a reservoir rock shows conduction phenomena that each petrophysical model underpinning an available
do not satisfy equations (1) - (5), because of the electrical interpretative algorithm for Sw does require a saturation
effects of shaliness or of a low-salinity formation water, or exponent that is appropriate to the model itself. In other
both. In these cases, equations (1) - (5) have been extended to words, it is important to identify how the saturation exponent
include at least one additional conductivity term that is should be determined for a given interpretative model and to
associated with shale and/or low-salinity effects. With one do so in a way that is compatible with the nature and
additional conductivity term X, equation (4) becomes: requirements of the model. This suggests that a saturation
exponent is not just specific to a particular reservoir rock but
Ct = (Cw /F*) Swn* + X Swq* (6) is also specific to the petrophysical model and thence to the
interpretative algorithm that is to be used.
where q* is a saturation exponent within the additional The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the use of
conductivity term. For the limiting case of fully water- model-specific saturation exponents does lead to evaluations
saturated conditions, equation (6) reduces to: of water saturation that can be reconciled when different
interpretative algorithms are used. To do this, it is necessary
C0 = (Cw /F*) + X (7) to have some criterion for deciding whether a reservoir rock
should be treated as an Archie reservoir or a non-Archie
The quantity X can be written for mathematical convenience reservoir. This criterion is established through the continuum
as: concept of the electrical character of reservoir rocks.4

X = x/F* (8) Continuum Concept

The continuum concept is founded on the premise that
Here x is a scaled parameter that quantifies the conduction intergranular reservoir rocks show a continuum of electrical
associated with shale and/or low-salinity effects. Equations behavior over a wide range of formation water conductivity
(6) – (8) relate to reservoir rocks wherein shale and/or a low- and electrical manifestation of shaliness. This phenomenon is
salinity electrolyte give rise to a significant extra conductivity most readily (but not uniquely) described for the case of fully
term X. These conditions can be termed “non-Archie” water-saturated siliciclastic sediments, on which uncertainties
conditions. Equations (6) and (7) can be seen as general forms in the saturation exponent have no bearing. Conduction
of equations (4) and (5), respectively. In equations (6) – (8) through a fully water-saturated reservoir rock is represented
the parameters F, n and q have been written F*, n* and q*, by the parallel resistor model described by equations (7) and
respectively, to indicate that they have to be quantified by (8), but rewritten in the following form by substituting for C0
taking account of non-Archie effects. This convention is using equation (5):
adopted throughout.
Equations (2) and (6) are used to evaluate water saturation F /F* = Cw / (Cw + x) (9)
from electrical measurements of Archie and non-Archie
reservoir rocks, respectively. Equation (2) is standard for For Archie conditions, the ratio F/F* ≈ 1, and this requirement
partially water-saturated Archie reservoir rocks. In contrast, is attained where x is sufficiently small and Cw is sufficiently
over the years many authors have presented interpretative large. For non-Archie conditions, F/F* << 1, and this
algorithms to describe quantitatively the electrical situation can prevail where x is sufficiently large or Cw is
characteristics of partially water-saturated non-Archie sufficiently small. For practical purposes, Archie conditions
reservoir rocks.2 Some of these equations have taken the form are assumed where F/F* ≥ 0.9 and therefore equations (1) –
of equation (6): others have taken different forms. All contain (5) only apply where this inequality is satisfied. Where F/F*
Archie and non-Archie terms. In particular, each equation < 0.5, equations such as (6) – (8) have to be handled with
takes a position either on the value of exponents such as q* or caution and they can break down in extreme cases.5
on how such an exponent relates to n*. It has long been Equation (9) is depicted graphically in Fig 1, which also
appreciated that these multifarious equations lead to contains the demarcation lines at F/F* = 0.9 and F/F* = 0.5.
significantly different estimates of water saturation and thence For present purposes, I will refer Fig. 1 to a notional
hydrocarbon saturation.3 measurement temperature of 25°C. In this paper, I will
One of the reasons why these diverse estimates of water consider only those reservoir rocks that lie within the shaded
saturation have not been reconciled is that the saturation area of Fig. 1. This domain is bounded by the line F/F* = 1,
exponent n or n* has generally been regarded exclusively as a at the limit, and by the line F/F* = 0.5, for reasons already
property of the reservoir rock. The same saturation exponent stated. It is also bounded by the curve Cw = 3.3 S/m (the
has been applied regardless of the character of the equation electrolyte conductivity at 25°C that broadly corresponds to
into which it is to be inserted. The situation has been 20000 mg/liter NaCl, the minimum water salinity used by
exacerbated by the practices of using default values of n or n*

Archie1), and by the curve Cw = 25.0 S/m (close to the Type 4. Again, the algorithm expresses total rock
maximum attainable electrolyte conductivity of an NaCl conductivity as the sum of three conductivity terms, but here
solution at 25°C). For any reservoir rock within this domain, water saturation appears in all three terms, so that:
the non-Archie formation factor F* becomes numerically
indistinguishable from the Archie formation factor F as x → 0 Ct = α Swn* + β Swp* + γ Swq* (13)
and thence equation (6) reduces to equation (4). Outside this
domain the situation is less clear, because lithologically-clean Examples of type-4 models are the Indonesia equation13 and
reservoirs that contain low-salinity waters can show pseudo- the method of Raiga-Clemenceau et al.14
shale effects, i.e. F/F* can be significantly less than unity even
where x is very small, as Fig. 1 indicates. Procedures for Determining Saturation Exponent
It is noteworthy that in the particular forms of those
Water-Saturation Algorithms algorithms with more than one exponent of Sw, all exponents
In the most common practice, where a saturation exponent is are expressed in terms of n or n*. Therefore the problem of
required as input, my earlier type classification of non-Archie determining saturation exponent remains one of evaluating n
algorithms still accommodates most of the models that have or n* for equations of all four types. The evaluation procedure
been proposed for the evaluation of water saturation from is based on curve-fitting Ir vs. Sw data from a single core plug.
electrical measurements.2 The type classification is as However, the function to be fitted should be governed by the
follows. interpretative model that is to be used subsequently to evaluate
Sw from resistivity logs. This model is described by an
Type 1. The algorithm expresses total rock conductivity as algorithm that will indicate whether the model uses n or n* as
the sum of Archie and non-Archie conductivity terms, but saturation exponent. The adoption of the algorithm leads to a
water saturation appears only in the Archie term and the saturation exponent that is suitable for use with the underlying
exponent q* = 0: interpretative model. Thus, the saturation exponent is
rendered fit for purpose. Values of n* are most reliable if they
Ct = α Swn* + γ (10) are established using control data, in the form of known values
of Cw, F* and x (the last two preferably from multiple-salinity
where α is a generalized coefficient of water saturation in the conductivity measurements). The approach is now described
Archie conductivity term and γ is a generalized form of the for each type-model in turn.
non-Archie conductivity term. Examples of type-1 models are
those of Hossin6 and Givens.7 Type 1. Here, and in virtually every other non-Archie case, α
= Cw/F*. The non-Archie term can be written in the form γ =
Type 2. Again, the algorithm expresses total rock x/F*. For a fully water-saturated reservoir rock, equation (10)
conductivity as the sum of Archie and non-Archie reduces to:
conductivity terms, but here water saturation appears in both
terms, so that: C0 = α + γ (14)

Ct = α Swn* + γ Swq* (11) Because Ir = C0/Ct, it follows from equations (10) and (14)
where γ is now a generalized coefficient of water saturation in
the non-Archie conductivity term. Examples of type-2 models Ir = (α + γ)/(α Swn* + γ) (15)
are the modified Simandoux,8 Waxman-Smits9 and dual-
water10 methods. or:

Type 3. The algorithm expresses total rock conductivity as Ir = (A + 1)/(A Swn* + 1) (16)
the sum of three conductivities, an Archie term, a non-Archie
term and a coupling term that brings together both Archie and where A = Cw/x. Equation (16) therefore allows a
non-Archie conductivities. Water saturation does not appear determination of n* as the only unknown parameter by a
in the non-Archie term, so that: regression analysis of Ir vs. Sw data measured on a single core
plug. However, the regression is done in a way that is
Ct = α Swn* + β Swp* + γ (12) consistent with the interpretative model and it is computed in
bilinear as opposed to bilogarithmic space. Type-1 models are
where β is a generalized coefficient of water saturation in the the least flexible of the four types considered.
coupling term for Archie and non-Archie conductivity and p*
is the saturation exponent within the same term. Examples of Type 2. For a fully water-saturated reservoir rock, equation
type-3 models are those of Husten & Anton11 and Schwartz (11) reduces to equation (14), so that:
and Sen.12

Ir = (α + γ) / (α Swn* + γ Swq*) (17) Equations (20) and (23) happen to be identical for the
particular models chosen. Once again, equation (23) can be
or: solved for γ in order to determine a model-compatible value
of the non-Archie coefficient and thence of the coupling
Ir = (A + 1) / (A Swn* + Swq*) (18) coefficient. Combining equations (22) and (23) we have:

Ir = (α + 2(αγ)0.5 + γ)/(α Swn* + 2(αγ)0.5 Swn* + γ Swn*) (24)

This approach is similar to that described for type-2 models by
Argaud et al., who set q* = n*.15 However, q* = n*-1 in most so that:
other type-2 models.8-10 Again, A = Cw/x and therefore n* can
be evaluated as the only unknown parameter by a regression Ir = 1 / Swn (25)
analysis of Ir vs. Sw data measured on a single core plug.
where n* has now been substituted by n, because the exponent
Type 3. Here the situation is different. The use of controlling is obtained by regression as though we were dealing with an
data from other core measurements is impeded by the coupling Archie situation. Note, however, that when the Indonesia
term and the many forms it can take. Therefore a particular equation is applied to field data through equation (22), values
form of type-3 equation has to be assumed in order to of α and γ are required. An analogous procedure can be
implement the approach. Taking the model of Husten & followed for the model of Raiga-Clemenceau et al.,14 which
Anton,11 we arrive at the following particular form of equation uses n*.
Synthesis. Table 1 lists the models that are considered here
Ct = α Swn* + 2 (αγ)0.5 Swn*-1 + γ (19) and indicates the exponents (n or n*) that are required to
characterize their interpretative algorithms. Type-1 models
or, in the case of fully water-saturated conditions: have not been included, because it became apparent at an early
stage that their mathematical form does not lend sufficient
C0 = α + 2 (αγ)0.5 + γ (20) flexibility to furnish satisfactory matches to Ir vs. Sw data
distributions when used in conjunction with controlling core
Equation (20) is incompatible with the linear form of C0 vs. Cw measurements. Better fits were obtained when the parameter
data at higher salinities and therefore those data cannot be A in equation (16) was unconstrained during the regression.
used to control the value of γ during regression. However, However, the determined values of this parameter then bore
since C0 and α are known, equation (20) can be solved as a little relation to reality. Further investigation of this problem
quadratic in γ0.5 in order to determine a model-compatible has been deferred, because type-1 algorithms are not widely
value of the non-Archie term and thence of the coupling used.
coefficient. When this has been done, regression of Ir vs. Sw
data can be effected using the following combination of Application of the Methods
equations (19) and (20): The procedures described above have been applied to
laboratory data in order to investigate the predictive
Ir = (α + 2(αγ)0.5 + γ)/(α Swn* + 2(αγ)0.5 Swn*-1 + γ) (21) performance of water-saturation algorithms when used with
fit-for-purpose saturation exponents. Two sample datasets
where α = Cw/F*. In this case, n* is the only unknown. An have been selected. Both of these lie within, and are
analogous procedure can be followed for the model of representative of, the admissible domain that is identified in
Schwartz and Sen.12 Fig. 1. Sample 1 behaves marginally as a shaly sand in that it
plots just below the line F/F* = 0.9 (Fig. 1). Sample 2 plots
Type 4. Again, a particular model has to be assumed in order so that F/F* << 1 (Fig. 1). On this basis we can expect fit-for-
to evaluate the coupling and the non-Archie terms for purpose saturation exponents to show a greater dispersion for
controlling the regression analysis. In this case I will begin Sample 2, because differences in non-Archie conductivity
with the Indonesia equation,13 which gives rise to the terms between interpretative models are more likely to be
following particular form of equation (13): significant where non-Archie effects are greater.

Sample 1. The first dataset to be considered has the

Ct = α Swn* + 2 (αγ)0.5 Swn* + γ Swn* (22)
petrophysical characteristics indicated in Table 2, where the
electrical properties are derived from multiple-salinity
or, in the case of fully water-saturated conditions:
conductivity measurements. The distribution of Ir vs. Sw data
for Cw = 9.98 S/m is shown in Fig. 2 with a conventional
C0 = α + 2 (αγ)0.5 + γ (23)
bilogarithmic display. The models of Table 1 have been fitted
to these data using the procedures described above. In

particular, Fig. 2 also shows a type-3 data fit based on the the predesignated water-saturation algorithm. In order for the
model of Husten and Anton.11 Note that although the result of method to be most effective, core data should also be used to
the data fitting is shown in bilogarithmic space, the regression calibrate the estimates of the non-Archie conductivity term
itself was effected in bilinear space. The resulting saturation that are made using well logs, because these estimates can be
exponents are listed in Table 3, which also compares the tenuous.
values of Sw predicted by the various models using the fit-for-
purpose saturation exponents. For the models of Waxman & Conclusions
Smits,9 Husten & Anton,11 Schwartz & Sen12 and Raiga- By drawing upon the recognized continuum of electrical
Clemenceau et al.,14 the predicted Sw was calculated by properties of fully water-saturated sands, it has been possible
successive approximation. Although the saturation exponents to identify a domain within which the non-Archie formation
do show significant variations, the predicted values of Sw factor F* becomes numerically equivalent to the Archie
based on these exponents all lie within a range defined by two formation factor F as the electrical manifestation of shaliness
saturation units, except for some departures where Ct = 0.02 approaches zero. The present study has been located within
S/m, at which point we have moved well beyond the that domain.
calibration range for this sample and also have strayed beyond Building on the type-classification of interpretative
the lower limit of Sw = 0.15 used by Archie.1 These algorithms for the evaluation of water saturation, a structured
predictions, too, draw upon the control provided by core data. approach has been outlined for the determination of a
It is unlikely that this precision would be achievable saturation exponent that is appropriate to an interpretative
downhole. However, our purpose here is to contain algorithm used to evaluate Sw from well logs. In this way, the
uncertainties that can be attributed to the determination of derivation of the saturation exponent and the subsequent field
saturation exponent itself, and this outcome has certainly been evaluation of Sw draw upon the same model throughout. Of
achieved in Table 3. the models considered, the Indonesia equation13 and the
algorithm of Argaud et al.15 require values of n: all the other
Sample 2. The second dataset relates to a tighter sample models require values of n*. Yet, notwithstanding these
(Table 2). The distribution of Ir vs. Sw data for Cw = 9.98 S/m different requirements, the approach adopted here is generic,
is shown in Fig. 3, once more in bilogarithmic space. Here, in that it can be applied to water saturation algorithms of all
the determined values of saturation exponent show a greater types. Note, however, that type-1 models have been dropped
spread. Yet, the values of Sw predicted by the different models from the present approach, where they contain only one term
again lie within a restricted range, with minor departures that can vary and this has been insufficient to fit meaningfully
where Ct = 0.02 S/m, at which point we have strayed beyond the observed data when physical controls are applied in the
the calibration range for this sample (Table 4). form of core calibration.
The application of these diverse equations, each used in
Discussion. The procedure that has been exemplified above is conjunction with its model-specific saturation exponent, has
generic. Its application allows model-specific values of furnished predictions of water saturation that are confined to a
saturation exponent to be evaluated. These values take the range of about two saturation units. Moreover, the same
form of n or n* as appropriate. outcome has been forthcoming over a range of formation
In the particular case of n*, the method described here conductivity Ct. Thus the adoption of a fit-for-purpose
offers a single-salinity desaturation approach to the saturation exponent can measurably contain the sensitivity
determination of a fit-for-purpose saturation exponent, given associated with the choice of an interpretative model for the
that a relationship between n* and p* and/or q* can be determination of water saturation. Thus, provided that n or n*
presupposed and that F* is known from supporting is determined and applied as described above, the choice of
conductivity measurements under conditions of full water interpretative algorithm for the evaluation of water saturation
saturation. The method complements the dual-salinity becomes much less critical. The application of the method
desaturation approach to the determination of model-specific therefore contributes to a managed uncertainty in
saturation exponent,16 which does not presuppose a petrophysical evaluation. In this respect it is beneficial both
relationship between n* and other exponents and does not technically and commercially.
require a knowledge of F*. Note that these comments relate implicitly to the domain
The examples considered show a linear, or quasi-linear, of the continuum chart that we have considered here (Fig. 1).
data trend of Ir vs. Sw in bilogarithmic space. The approach Further benefits are likely to accrue in very shaly reservoirs
would need to be modified in order to accommodate those and those containing relatively fresh formation waters. Future
non-linear data trends that are encountered in the presence of work will include the extension of the method to cases such as
microporosity.17 Again, no account has been taken of these and an appraisal of how the present methodology is
formation anisotropy, which is known to increase under impacted when type algorithms are used beyond their
conditions of partial water saturation.18 conventional range of application.
In a field study, several samples from the same petrofacies
unit would be considered so that a representative saturation
exponent could be identified for application to that unit using

References 10. Clavier, C., Coates, G. & Dumanoir, J. : “Theoretical

1. Archie, G.E.: “The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid and Experimental Bases for the Dual-water Model for
in Determining Some Reservoir Characteristics,” Trans. Interpretation of Shaly Sands,” Society of Petroleum
AIME 146 (1942) 54-62. Engineers Journal 24 (1974) 153-167.
2. Worthington, P.F.: “The Evolution of Shaly-Sand 11. Husten, P. & Anton, H.: “The Porosity Surface
Concepts in Reservoir Evaluation,” The Log Analyst Concept,” Oil Gas 7(1) (1981) 40-42.
26(1), (1985) 23-40. 12. Schwartz, L.M. & Sen, P.N.: “Electrolytic Conduction
3. Fertl, W.H. & Hammack, G.W.: “A Comparative Look in Partially Saturated Shaly Formations,” SPE Paper
at Water Saturation Computations in Shaly Pay Sands,” 18131 (1988).
Trans. SPWLA 12th Annual Logging Symposium (1971) 13. Poupon, A. & Leveaux, J.: “Evaluation of Water
R1-17. Saturation in Shaly Formations,” Trans. SPWLA 12th
4. Worthington, P.F.: “A Continuum Approach to the Annual Logging Symposium (1971) O1-2. (Full text in:
Petrophysical Classification and Evaluation of Reservoir SPWLA, Houston, Texas, Shaly Sand Reprint Volume
Rocks,” Petroleum Geoscience 1 (1995) 97-108. (1982) IV 81-95.)
5. Worthington, P.F.: “Recognition and Evaluation of 14. Raiga-Clemenceau, J., Fraisse, C. & Grossjean, Y.: “The
Low-Resistivity Pay,” Petroleum Geoscience 6 (2000) Dual Porosity Model : A Newly Developed
77-92. Interpretation Method for Shaly Sands,” Trans. SPWLA
6. Hossin, A.: “Calcul des Saturations en Eau par la 25th Annual Logging Symposium (1976) E1-16.
Méthode du Ciment Argileux (Formule d’Archie 15. Argaud, M., Giouse, H., Straley, C., Tomanic, J. &
Generalisée),” Bulletin de l’Association Française des Winkler, K.: “Salinity and Saturation Effects on Shaly
Techniciens du Pétrole 140 (1960). Sandstone Conductivity,” SPE Paper 19577 (1989).
7. Givens, W.W.: “A Conductive Rock Matrix Model 16. Worthington, P.F.: “Characterization of Water
(CRMM) for the Analysis of Low-Contrast Resistivity Saturation Algorithms Through Dual-Salinity
Formations,” The Log Analyst 28(2) (1987) 138-151. Desaturations,” The Log Analyst 37(1) (1996) 31-46.
8. Bardon, C. & Pied, B. : “Formation Water Saturation in 17. Worthington, P.F. & Pallatt, N.: “Effect of Variable
Shaly Sands,” Trans. SPWLA 10th Annual Logging Saturation Exponent upon the Evaluation of
Symposium (1969) Z1-19. Hydrocarbon Saturation,” SPE Formation Evaluation 7
9. Waxman, M.H. & Smits, L.J.M.: “Electrical (1992) 331-336.
Conductivities in Oil-bearing Shaly Sands,” Society of 18. Klein, J.D.: “Saturation Effects on Electrical
Petroleum Engineers Journal 8 (1968) 107-122. Anisotropy,” The Log Analyst 37(1) (1996) 47-49.

Table 1 Models used in the analysis Table 2 Petrophysical properties of samples

Model type Name Saturation Sample Porosity Formation Non-Archie

exponent No. Factor Conductivity
2 Waxman & Smits n*
2 Argaud et al. n 1 0.189 27.8 1.34
3 Husten & Anton n* 2 0.107 87.0 2.99
3 Schwartz & Sen n*
4 Indonesia n
4 Raiga-Clemenceau et al. n*

Table 3 Results for Sample 1 Table 4 Results for Sample 2

Model name Fit-For- Predicted Sw for input

Model name Fit-For- Predicted Sw for input
Purpose values of Ct (S/m) =
Purpose values of Ct (S/m) =
Saturation 0.1 0.05 0.02
Saturation 0.1 0.05 0.02
Waxman & Smits 2.25 0.819 0.574 0.350
Waxman & Smits 1.83 0.430 0.274 0.144
Argaud et al. 1.93 0.813 0.568 0.353
Argaud et al. 1.63 0.422 0.276 0.157
Husten & Anton 2.31 0.822 0.576 0.344
Husten & Anton 1.86 0.425 0.268 0.135
Schwartz & Sen 2.24 0.827 0.583 0.331
Schwartz & Sen 1.77 0.432 0.270 0.111
Indonesia 1.93 0.813 0.567 0.353
Indonesia 1.63 0.418 0.273 0.156
Raiga-Clemenceau 2.08 0.815 0.569 0.352
Raiga-Clemenceau 1.72 0.420 0.273 0.153
et al.
et al.

Sample 2

25.0 S/m
10.0 S/m

3.3 S/m

1.0 S/m

Cw=0.1 S/m

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Fig.1 Continuum of shale effects

R esist ivit y R esistivity

In dex In de x

10 10
8 8
6 6

4 4

2 2

1 1
0.1 0.2 0 .4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 .1 0.2 0.4 0. 6 0.8 1.0
W at er Sa tu ratio n W ater S atur atio n

Fi g.2 R e si sti vi ty ind e x vs . wa ter s a tur ati on Fi g.3 R e s is tiv ity in de x vs . wa ter s a turati on
for S a m ple 1 w ith Ty pe -3 da ta fit for S a m ple 2 with Ty pe -3 da ta fit